Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti , 131 Ohio St. 3d 165 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 
    131 Ohio St.3d 165
    , 
    2012-Ohio-223
    .]
    DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SCACCHETTI.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti,
    
    131 Ohio St.3d 165
    , 
    2012-Ohio-223
    .]
    Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Violations relating to client trust account—
    Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation—Neglect of legal
    matter—Indefinite suspension.
    (No. 2011-1409—Submitted October 5, 2011—Decided January 26, 2012.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
    Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-043.
    __________________
    Per Curiam.
    {¶ 1} Respondent, David John Scacchetti of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney
    
    Registration No. 0014117,
     was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1982. In
    June 2007, we suspended Scacchetti for two years, with the final 18 months
    stayed on conditions based upon his cocaine use and related criminal charges.
    Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 
    114 Ohio St.3d 36
    , 
    2007-Ohio-2713
    , 
    867 N.E.2d 830
    . We reinstated Scacchetti to the practice of law and placed him on
    probation on March 20, 2008. Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 
    117 Ohio St.3d 1216
    , 
    2008-Ohio-1489
    , 
    883 N.E.2d 1073
    .1                  And on November 1, 2011, we
    suspended his license for failure to comply with the registration requirements of
    Gov.Bar R. VI for the 2011-2013 biennium.                    In re Attorney Registration
    Suspension of Scacchetti, 
    130 Ohio St.3d 1423
    , 
    2011-Ohio-5627
    , 
    956 N.E.2d 310
    .
    {¶ 2} On April 11, 2011, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint
    charging Scacchetti with violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct,
    1. As of the date of this opinion, Scacchetti has not applied for termination of his probation as
    required by Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D).
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    alleging that he had commingled personal and client funds, used his client trust
    account as a personal account or law-office operating account, neglected a client
    matter, and failed to respond in the ensuing disciplinary investigations. The
    Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline attempted to serve
    Scacchetti with a copy of the complaint by certified mail at the address he had
    registered with the Office of Attorney Registration, but the letter was returned
    unclaimed. On May 9, 2011, the clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted
    service on Scacchetti’s behalf in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B), and
    relator moved for default judgment pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F) on June 23,
    2011.
    {¶ 3} The board referred the motion to a master commissioner, who
    found that the materials relator offered in support of his default motion were
    sufficient and that relator had proved each of the alleged violations of the Rules of
    Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence.                 The master
    commissioner, however, rejected relator’s recommended two-year suspension
    from the practice of law in favor of an indefinite suspension. The board adopted
    the master commissioner’s findings of fact and misconduct and his recommended
    sanction.
    Misconduct
    {¶ 4} The essence of the board’s findings is as follows. With regard to
    count one, relator received notice from Scacchetti’s bank that he had overdrawn
    his client trust account on five separate occasions. In response to those notices,
    relator sent letters of inquiry seeking Scacchetti’s explanation of the overdrafts.
    Although Scacchetti submitted a partial response to one letter, spoke with
    assistant disciplinary counsel by telephone, and requested and received an
    extension of time to provide additional information, he did not provide any
    additional information or respond to relator’s subsequent correspondence.
    Scacchetti was subpoenaed to attend two depositions, but failed to appear.
    2
    January Term, 2012
    {¶ 5} The board also found that from May 2009 through November
    2010, Scacchetti commingled personal and client funds in his client trust account,
    used that account as if it were a personal account or law-office operating account,
    and caused the account to be overdrawn on five separate occasions.
    {¶ 6} With respect to count two, the board found that respondent
    represented Mariscal Protasio Cortez on a felony-theft matter before the Hamilton
    County Court of Common Pleas. Cortez entered a guilty plea to a first-degree-
    misdemeanor theft charge and, as part of the plea agreement, provided Scacchetti
    with $100 to pay restitution to the victim of the offense. Although Scacchetti
    informed the presiding judge that he would make the payment and provide the
    court with a copy of the receipt, he failed to do so. And, as in count one,
    Scacchetti failed to respond to relator’s letters of inquiry.
    {¶ 7} Based upon its factual findings, the board found that respondent’s
    conduct with respect to count one violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a
    lawyer to hold funds of clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate
    from the lawyer’s own property), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly
    failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during
    an investigation), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is
    prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from
    engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law)
    and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary
    investigation).
    {¶ 8} With respect to count two, the board found that respondent’s
    conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable
    diligence in representing a client), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver
    funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive), 8.1(b),
    8.4(d), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. (V)(4)(G).
    3
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    Sanction
    {¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider
    relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the
    sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 
    96 Ohio St.3d 424
    , 
    2002-Ohio-4743
    , 
    775 N.E.2d 818
    , ¶ 16.                In making a final
    determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors
    listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on
    Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
    Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 
    115 Ohio St.3d 473
    , 
    2007-Ohio-5251
    , 
    875 N.E.2d 935
    , ¶ 21.
    {¶ 10} The board found that there are no mitigating factors present but
    that Scacchetti’s prior disciplinary record, his pattern of misconduct, and his
    failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process are aggravating factors in this case.
    BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), and (e). The board also found that on April 15,
    2011, respondent pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of possession of drug
    paraphernalia and was sentenced to two years of community control, conditioned
    upon his submission to random urine testing and participation in outpatient
    treatment.
    {¶ 11} Relator recommended that Scacchetti be suspended from the
    practice of law, with reinstatement conditioned upon his successful completion of
    a minimum two-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program
    (“OLAP”) and any OLAP treatment recommendations, compliance with the terms
    of his community control, and completion of continuing legal education relating
    to client trust accounts.
    {¶ 12} Having considered Scacchetti’s conduct, the relevant aggravating
    factors, the absence of any mitigating factors, and the sanction imposed for
    comparable conduct in Dayton Bar Assn. v. Wilson, 
    127 Ohio St.3d 10
    , 2010-
    Ohio-4937, 
    935 N.E.2d 841
     (imposing an indefinite suspension on an attorney
    4
    January Term, 2012
    who failed to maintain accurate records of the funds held in her client trust
    account, failed to promptly deliver funds that a client was entitled to receive,
    failed to provide diligent and competent legal representation to another client, and
    failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation), the board
    recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law.
    {¶ 13} Clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Scacchetti
    neglected the legal matters of his client, failed to promptly deliver funds or other
    property that a third party was entitled to receive, and failed to cooperate in the
    ensuing disciplinary investigation.2            We have recognized that “[a] lawyer’s
    neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary
    investigation generally warrant an indefinite suspension from the practice of law
    in Ohio.” Akron Bar Assn. v. Goodlet, 
    115 Ohio St.3d 7
    , 
    2007-Ohio-4271
    , 
    873 N.E.2d 815
    , ¶ 20.
    {¶ 14} Therefore, we agree that the indefinite suspension recommended
    by the board is the appropriate sanction in this case. In light of Scacchetti’s
    previous drug-related suspension and his recent conviction for possession of
    illegal drug paraphernalia, we also agree that to protect the public and maintain
    2. Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b) provides that a motion for default in a disciplinary proceeding shall
    contain “[s]worn or certified documentary prima facie evidence in support of the allegations
    made.” Relator’s exhibits 3 through 57 include photocopies of letters relator purportedly sent to
    Scacchetti, bank records, photocopies of checks deposited into and drafted on Scacchetti’s client
    trust account, a letter purportedly sent to relator by Scacchetti, a transcript of an attempted
    deposition, two subpoenas duces tecum purportedly served upon Scacchetti, and overdraft notices
    purportedly sent to relator by Scacchetti’s bank. Although relator has also submitted the affidavit
    of an assistant disciplinary counsel detailing relator’s efforts to communicate with Scacchetti, that
    affidavit does not state that the documents submitted with the affidavit are true copies or
    reproductions of the originals sent to or received from Scacchetti. Because the record contains no
    sworn or certified evidence relating to Scacchetti’s handling of his client trust account, we cannot
    adopt the board’s findings of fact or misconduct with regard to his alleged violation of
    Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a). See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Newman, 
    124 Ohio St.3d 505
    , 
    2010-Ohio-928
    ,
    
    924 N.E.2d 359
    , ¶ 8-9. Based on the evidence supporting the other violations, however, the lack
    of certified evidence on this violation does not alter the outcome of this case.
    5
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    the integrity of the legal profession, any future reinstatement will be conditioned
    upon his entering into a minimum two-year OLAP contract and compliance with
    all OLAP treatment recommendations, compliance with the conditions of his
    community control, and completion of at least 12 hours of continuing legal
    education related to law-practice management.
    {¶ 15} Therefore, we indefinitely suspend David John Scacchetti from the
    practice of law in Ohio. Any future reinstatement will be conditioned upon
    Scacchetti’s submission of proof that he has entered into a minimum two-year
    OLAP contract, is in compliance with all OLAP treatment recommendations, is in
    compliance with the conditions of his community control, and has completed at
    least 12 hours of continuing legal education related to law-practice management.
    Costs are taxed to Scacchetti.
    Judgment accordingly.
    O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,
    LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
    __________________
    Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek
    Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    ______________________
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2011-1409

Citation Numbers: 2012 Ohio 223, 131 Ohio St. 3d 165

Judges: O'Connor, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, Brown

Filed Date: 1/26/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/12/2024